I am contemplating on getting a portable portrait lens for Sony A7/A7r. Though I love the 85mm/1.2L II from Canon for its quality, color rendition, bokeh, ext…its weights and size make me rarely used it with the Sony A7r (even though I had use the lens with metabones adapter IV). I would like to ask for your suggestions. Budget is $1000 max, size must be relatively small to fit well with sony A7r, either AF or MF is fine. Thanks guys.
rongwam wrote:
I am contemplating on getting a portable portrait lens for Sony A7/A7r. Though I love the 85mm/1.2L II from Canon for its quality, color rendition, bokeh, ext…its weights and size make me rarely used it with the Sony A7r (even though I had use the lens with metabones adapter IV). I would like to ask for your suggestions. Budget is $1000 max, size must be relatively small to fit well with sony A7r, either AF or MF is fine. Thanks guys.
Pentax 77mm f/1.8 Limited (if buying used try and find a Made in Japan copy).
Or for longer FL consider a Tair-11A (135/2.8). It's heavy but not huge. Being heavy helps with the shutter shock. My copy is razor sharp, 20 aperture blades, perfect bokeh. £150.
Aug 03, 2014 at 03:02 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
rongwam wrote:
I am contemplating on getting a portable portrait lens for Sony A7/A7r. Though I love the 85mm/1.2L II from Canon for its quality, color rendition, bokeh, ext…its weights and size make me rarely used it with the Sony A7r (even though I had use the lens with metabones adapter IV). I would like to ask for your suggestions. Budget is $1000 max, size must be relatively small to fit well with sony A7r, either AF or MF is fine. Thanks guys.
AF I would go with the Minolta 100 f/2. For MF the Leica M 90 f/2 version 3 is a great lens and can sometimes be found in your budget. There are many good options, but these make great portrait lenses.
to keep things compact i'd probably vote leica m 90 cron pre-asph.
the pentax 77/1.8 and cv 75/1.8 are definitely worth looking into, but i don't have any direct experience with them.
even better would be leica m summarit 75/2.5, but you'd have to wait for a good deal to get it under $1k.
there are a bunch of old slr 85/1.8 and 85/2 lenses that could work, they all have different pluses and minuses. i really liked the rokkor 85/1.7, but it is pretty big and the 6 aperture blades bugged me when shooting at f/2 to f/4 (a lot of the old slr lenses have this issue).
for the time being i'm going with a 2 lens solution: jupiter-9 (russian knock off of the contax 85/2 sonnar) for portraits and contax g 90/2.8 for landscape. the jupiter is sharp enough to do landscape too, but has pretty serious flare issues. both are compact and pretty cheap.
The Pentax 77 f/1.8 Limited is a nice lens and pretty compact, but it is a lot less so with the adapter. The lens has a 64mm diameter, but with the adapter it is 75.46mm long. So a compact lens on a Pentax camera becomes a not nearly so compact lens on the Sony Camera. Still it is relatively small for portrait lens. Personally, I am not that interested in the lens because I would prefer a lens that is designed for manual focus if I am going to manually focus the lens. The Pentax is good for manual focus for an AF lens, but it is not up to lenses designed for manual focus. Still if you can live with the somewhat short focal length and the manual focussing it is a good quality lens and a pretty small package.
I suggesedt the Leica M 90 f/2 (summicron) version III (also known as the pre-AA) because it is both a reasonable price and still relatively small. It also has a very nice rendering and very nice bokeh and the slightly longer focal length I also find appealing for portraits. It's volume is 266300 cubic mm, which is just a bit over the Pentax 77 limited which has a volume of 242900 cubic mm. The Pentax is a little fatter (about 2 mm) and a little shorter (about 10mm), but both are pretty compact. The Leica is also designed for manual focus.
Both these lenses are good choices and it depends on your own personal preferences which makes most sense, IMO.
rongwam wrote:
I am contemplating on getting a portable portrait lens for Sony A7/A7r. Though I love the 85mm/1.2L II from Canon for its quality, color rendition, bokeh, ext…its weights and size make me rarely used it with the Sony A7r (even though I had use the lens with metabones adapter IV). I would like to ask for your suggestions. Budget is $1000 max, size must be relatively small to fit well with sony A7r, either AF or MF is fine. Thanks guys.
I would get the Sony Sonnar T* FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA Lens. One of the best lenses tested + it's a perfect match for the A7R in regards to size/weight and AF.
I'm with Sneakyracer - the 55 f/1.8 is a gem. It was practically glued to my A7s until I got the 70-200.
I'm in love with Sony at the moment. Even though the native FE lens choices are limited at this point in time, the few lenses that do exist are pretty amazing (the 55 being the best of the bunch though, IMHO).
+1 & +1 Steve Spencer and sebboh in support of Leica Summicron-M 90 v.III
It's a great desing from Mandler's era and M version, with any decent M--> E adapter will make a fairly small combo with A7/r/s
If you can handle e$tra, go for Leica Summilux-M 75. Similar size to Cron-90 but a great step-up. See charles.K posts with this lens and drill to his own website for more.
The Summilux-R 80 is supposed to be a near optical twin to the 75 Lux and should be more reasonably priced, though still well over the stated budget.
I'd wait until Photokina to see what/if Sony and Zeiss announce more FE lenses. Zeiss is supposedly working on a selection of manual focus lenses for the FE mount. A native ~85mm portrait lens is currently a glaring hole in the system.
Otherwise, consider the Nikon 105/2.5. It's most well known in F mount but was also made in Leica thread mount (LTM) and is not a bad size, though solid/heavy. The original variant is a Sonnar design so will have nice rendering and good contrast/roundness, plus a nice touch of SA at nearer distances to take a bit of edge off portraits. I think all but the earliest of the F mount versions were an optical adaptation of the Sonnar design, so may render a bit differently.
I have the Voigtlander 75/1.8 that Derek mentioned. It's a decent portrait lens that is supposedly based on older design characteristics (hence the 'classic' in the name) but I find it's neither here nor there in terms of character. It's not a technically sharp across-the-frame lens like more modern designs, yet isn't as unusual in its character like some vintage lenses can be. It also has a relatively annoying tendency to purple fringe if shooting higher contrast scenes/transitions. The 75/2.5 Summarit would definitely be a sharper, more modern, better corrected lens. The Voigtlander 75/2.5 probably sits between the two.
Otherwise, there have got to be a number of vintage SLR options in the 85-105 range from Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus, Contax/Yashica...
Thank you all for your suggestions. It looks like we have many options, but I think the Pentax 77/1.8 and Leica sum micron 90/2 are very good choices. For my personal taste, I might try out the pentax 77/1.8. Any suggestions on which adapter I should buy to use this pentax lens on my Sony A7r body? Thanks again.
@Bluffer and Steve Spencer: Thanks for awesome responses and the links!
rscheffler wrote:
Otherwise, consider the Nikon 105/2.5...
I'm surprised focal length doesn't come up more often when talking about portrait lenses on full frame.
Eastman Kodak would always suggest 80-85mm was the ideal focal length for portraits, but I think they were referring to a waist up portrait. When I was taking headshots in LA, the defacto standard was the use of the Nikon 105/2.5 for head and shoulder portraits and I also preferred that longer focal length on full frame, as it flattens the image (and noses) just a hair more. Shot at a wider aperture the face and head was in focus with adequate subject isolation from the background. Currently, I have seen excellent results with the C/Y 100/2.
Not a small lens, but my favorite portrait lens is the Minolta 85/1.4 G. With the LA-EA4 on the A7, it will also autofocus, but I like it just for the look.
JimBuchanan wrote:
I'm surprised focal length doesn't come up more often when talking about portrait lenses on full frame.
Eastman Kodak would always suggest 80-85mm was the ideal focal length for portraits, but I think they were referring to a waist up portrait. When I was taking headshots in LA, the defacto standard was the use of the Nikon 105/2.5 for head and shoulder portraits and I also preferred that longer focal length on full frame, as it flattens the image (and noses) just a hair more. Shot at a wider aperture the face and head was in focus with adequate subject isolation from the background. Currently, I have seen excellent results with the C/Y 100/2. ...Show more →
I agree. I think there has been a shift in thinking about portrait lenses. So much attention is put on the f/1.4 and faster variants, which invariably are only available at 85mm, that slower f/2-2.5 and longer options are overlooked. Maybe the thinking is only super fast lenses are 'serious' portrait lenses? Ironically, most of the paid portraits I do are against a backdrop/green screen and at f/8 (shot with a 70-200/4).
Agreed with Jim about the longer the focal length, the more flattering the image. Most of my head and shoulder portraits were done within 80-135mm, and I found Canon 85/1.2L II and 135/2 are two awesome lens for head and shoulder portrait work. I can easily handle the 135/2 with metabones adapter on Sony A7r (perhaps due to its lighter weight than 85/1.2L), so I am ok with the long range. I am looking for a smaller/more compact lens than Canon 85/1.2 to carry around with the A7r. I love the Sony 55/1.8, but I prefer a portrait lens with focal length little longer than 55. Pentax 77/1.8 seems to be a good choice to try out. Thanks for your input, JIm!
I agree with Ron that wide aperture and portrait do not mix, unless you subscribe to the one-eye-is-in-focus school. On FF 135 format, 135mm @ f/8 is classic for a tight head shot, while 90mm @ f/5.6 is perfect for head-and-shoulders. I would stop down one more stop if the subject is moving around. These days, I use a Leitz Tele-Elmar 135 and Elmar 90, both from the '60s. These lenses are as sharp as you want, and dirt cheap.
rongwam wrote:
Agreed with Jim about the longer the focal length, the more flattering the image. Most of my head and shoulder portraits were done within 80-135mm, and I found Canon 85/1.2L II and 135/2 are two awesome lens for head and shoulder portrait work
The other advantage of a longer focal length for headshots is a more comfortable working distance, I've found using a 85mm lens for a tight headshot means you have to get uncomfortably close, a 135mm gives your subject a bit more space and makes them feel a bit less "under the microscope".
I'm going to chime in and suggest something a little different. The 50mm zeiss zm sonnar 1.5. I have been playing with that lens recently and I've been really happy with its rendering. It is also super compact. I suppose it depends on your shooting style and the type of portraits you want to be taking.
I'm very partial to Sony's 85/2.8 SAM sonnar-clone. It's cheap as chips, brilliant from wide open and has lovely bokeh. Just a gem of a portrait lens.
I should note that my style in portrature tends to keeping the full face in focus, so I don't shoot fast lenses wide open for portraits, preferring to shoot between f2.8-4 instead.
Sneakyracer wrote:
I would get the Sony Sonnar T* FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA Lens. One of the best lenses tested + it's a perfect match for the A7R in regards to size/weight and AF.
